Smt. Rajani Bekkam

1 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, KHAMMAM

Date this the 27th day of April, 2026

Present:B. Rajani, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

CC.No.1261 of 2022

Between: The State police through Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Enkoor

.... Complainant

And

Gajendra Srikanth, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age: 24 years, Occ: Car Driver cum owner, R/o. Arikayalapadu village of Enkoor Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri SK.Shareef Khan, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record; this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police P.S. Enkoor laid charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.73/2022 of P.S. Enkoor alleging that the accused has committed an offence under section 294(b), 326, 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 14.03.2022 at 1600 hours the defacto complainant Gone

Padma came to Police Station and lodged a report in Telugu in which she stated that on 12.03.2022 night at about 2100 hours her villager by name Gajendra Srikanth came to her house and beat her husband 2 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

Ravinder Reddy/LW2 with stick on left forehead and her aunt Gone

Venkatamma/LW3 with stick on left hand. She shifted both to

Government Hospital, Khammam. Yesterday i.e. on 13.03.2022 evening at 1700 hours she came to her village and the above said person followed her by saying he will kill her husband and aunt by beating and abused her in filthy language. Finally, she requested for taking necessary action against Gajendra Srikanth and do justice.

Basing on the report given by the defacto complainant, the police registered a case in Cr.No.73/2022, U/Sec.294(b), 324 IPC and the investigating officer examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators and seized one stick and examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to

LW5 and on 30.03.2022 obtained Medical certificates of LW2 and LW3 and in medical certificate of LW2 it is opined that no external injuries were found and in medical certificate of LW3 injuries are grievous in nature basing on the Medical certificate of LW3 altered the section of law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC and added the section of Law 506 as per the statements of witnesses and issued alteration memo and on 06.04.2022 apprehended the accused and sent him for judicial custody and after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.294(b), 326, 506 IPC.

3 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

3.On receipt of the charge sheet the court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec.326, 506 IPC against the accused and summons were served to him.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 326, 506

IPC and are read over and explained to him in Vernacular language for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8, MO.1 is the stick. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and PW.3 are the injured persons. PW4 is the eye witness to the incident. PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses to the CDF. PW7 is the Medical Officer, PW8 is the Investigation Officer.

Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW5, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW5 on CDF, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW6 on CDF,

Ex.P5 is the Wound certificate of PW3 and Ex.P6 is the Wound certificate of PW2. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW4.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating 4 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026 material in the evidence of PW1 to PW8, having understood the same and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the documents available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections, 326, 506 IPC?

POINT:

10.PW1 deposed in chief examination that she is a resident of

Arikayalapadu village of Enkoor Mandal. PW2 is her husband, PW3 is her mother-in-law, LW4 is her sister-in-law, and she knows PW4 and the accused. Further deposed that on 13/3/2022, at about 9.00 P.M., accused came to their house and beat PW2 and PW3 with sticks, as a result, PW2 sustained injury on left forehead and PW3 sustained a left- hand fracture. Later they both were shifted to the government hospital in Khammam for treatment and on the next day i.e., 14.03.2022, she lodged report with police and after lodging the report also the accused came to their house and threatened them that he will kill them.

During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she knows the contents of Ex.P1/report. PW1 admitted that she lodged the report on the next day of the incident i.e., 14/3/2022 and that there are no land 5 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026 disputes or other disputes between herself and the accused and the mother of the accused is Sarpanch at the time of the alleged incident.

PW1 further admitted that she has friendship with the accused for the past 12 years and further admitted that she has mentioned in Ex.P1 that the alleged incident occurred on 12/3/2022. PW1 denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that while she along with the accused in private space, PW3 and her father-in-law saw the same and admonished them and that as herself and the accused have illicit relationship, her in- laws admonished them and made her to file a false case against the accused, and that the accused is no way concerned with the case and that she is deposing false at the instance of her family members.

11.PW2, who is the husband of PW1, deposed in his chief examination that on 12/3/2022 at about 9.00 pm the accused came to their house in a drunken condition and made galata as such they came out from the house and the accused beat him on the left side of his head with a stick. While his mother/PW3 rushed to the incident, the accused beat her on the left hand, as such she sustained hand fracture and abused them in filthy language and meanwhile his wife/PW1 came there and accused tried to beat her also. Later, their neighbours came there and on seeing them the accused ran away from there. On the next day,

PW1 lodged a report with Enkoor PS.

6 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that himself and the accused are belongs to same village and that there are no disputes with respect to land or any property between himself and the accused.

PW2 further admitted that he does not know the contents of his 161

Cr.P.C statement. PW2 denied the suggestions of the learned defence counsel that PW1 lodged false report as himself and the accused is having political disputes and he does not know any facts of this case and he is deposing false and that the accused is no way concerned with the case.

12.PW3, who is the mother-in-law of PW1 and the mother of

PW2, deposed in her chief examination that about five years ago, one day at night hours, the accused came to their house in a drunken condition and made galata, as such they came out of the house and PW2 questioned him, then the accused beat PW2 on the left side of his head with a stick and while she was trying to rescue the incident, the accused beat her on left hand, resulting which she sustained hand fracture and also abused them in filthy language. On the next day, PW1 lodged a report with the Enkoor police station.

During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that herself and accused are belongs to same village. She further admitted that she does not know the contents of her 161 Cr.P.C statement as she is illiterate and that there are no disputes with respect to land or any property 7 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026 between herself and the accused. PW3 denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that she does not know any facts of this case and deposing false and accused is no way concerned with the case.

13.PW4 who is alleged to be an eyewitness to the incident, turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.

14.PW5 who is alleged to be acted as a mediator for CDF, deposed in his chief examination that about three years ago, on one day at night at 9.00 PM, the SI of police of Enkoor PS came to the house of

PW1 and called him and obtained his signature and the signature of PW6 and further deposed that except this police never conducted any panchnama in his presence.

During cross-examination, PW5 deposed that he does not remember the date on which the police came to the house of PW1 and obtained his signature. PW5 admitted that he does not know for what purpose the police came to the house of PW1 and for what purpose the police obtained his signatures and further stated that he signed on some papers at the request of the police.

15.PW6 who is alleged to be another mediator for CDF, turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution.

8 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

16.PW7 who is the medical officer deposed that on 12.03.2022at about 11.30 PM PW2 and PW3 came to their Hospital as out patient and she examined them and found the following injuries:

Contusion of 10X5CM, fresh in nature and the age of injury less than 24 hours on left forearm. On her examination she expected that there is internal injury, as such she suggested her for X-ray. As per expert opinion by the radiologist by X-ray No.579/6093, Dt.12.03.2022, suggested fracture mid shaft of radious and ulna means both bones fracture on left forearm and concluded that the injury is grevious in nature. Further deposed that she noticed that no external injuries on

PW2. Accordingly she issued Medical certificates of PW2 and PW3 under

Ex.P6 and Ex.P5 respectively.

17.PW8 who is the Investigation Officer in this case in his chief examination deposed the lines of investigation and filing of charge sheet.

During cross examination PW8 deposed that he does not know who scribed the Ex.P7/FIR. PW8 admitted that he received report from the PW1 on 14/03/2022, and as per Ex.P1/report the alleged incident was occurred on 12/03/2022 at about 9.00 pm. Further admitted that as per Ex.P6 no external injuries were found on PW2 and

PW1 to PW3 are belongs to same family. PW8 further deposed that he did not collect any x-ray pertaining to the PW3 and he did not sent

MO.1/stick to FSL for comparison of finger prints of the accused. He 9 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026 denied the suggestions of learned defense counsel that he registered a false case against the accused by the influence of political leaders and that he is deposing false.

18.On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record admittedly PW1 to PW3 are belongs to same family. As per the the oral evidence of Pw1 the alleged incident was occurred on 13.03.2022 whereas as per oral evidence of PW2 the alleged incident was occurred on 12.03.2022 and as per Ex.P1/report the alleged incident was occurred on 12.03.2022 and all the PW1 to PW3 deposed that PW1 lodged report on the next day of alleged incident. Therefore there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with regard to the date of alleged incident and lodging of report. Upon perusal of evidence of PW2 and PW3 they both are deposed that accused person came to their house and beat the

PW2 and PW3 and they both sustained injuries and meanwhile PW1 came there and the accused tried to beat her also but on perusal of the evidence of PW1 she no where stated that she also present there and accused also tried to beat her. PW2 and PW3 deposed that accused person tried to beat PW1 on the day of alleged incident where as PW1 either in her oral evidence or Ex.P1/report no where stated that accused person tried to beat her which is the major contradiction in the evidence of PW1 to PW3.

10 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

19.During cross examination PW1 to PW3 admitted that there are no land disputes or other disputes between themselves and the accused. And also PW1 admitted that she did not mention about the reason for alleged incident in Ex.P1/report which creates the doubt in the mind of the Court. On perusal of evidence of PW4 who is alleged to be eye witness to the incident turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.

20.On perusal of evidence of PW5 and evidence of PW6 who are alleged to be acted as mediators for CDF, PW5 deposed in his chief examination that police never conducted any panchanama in his presence and also admitted that he does not know for what purpose police came to the house of PW1 and obtained his signatures and another mediator i.e., PW6 turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3 deposed that PW3 sustained left hand fracture. PW8 who is the

Investigation Officer deposed that he did not collect any X-Ray pertaining to the PW3. And PW8 who is the Investigation Officer in this case did not sent the MO.1/Stick to the FSL for comparison of the finger prints of accused in order to show that the accused person beat PW2 and

PW3 with a stick. On perusal of the entire evidence available on record admittedly PW1 to PW3 belongs to same family and PW4 who is alleged to be eye witness to the incident did not support the version of the prosecution and PW8 who is the Investigation Officer also failed to send 11 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026 the MO1/stick to the FSL for comparison of finger prints of the accused to prove that the accused person beat the PW2 and PW3. Therefore there is no independent evidence to show that the accused person beat the PW2 and PW3 with a stick/MO.1

21.Therefore there is no independent corroborating evidence, as alleged eye witness turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution and there is no independent corroborating evidence that

PW1 to PW3 who are belongs to same family.

22.In view of the above discrepancies, discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326, 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. MO.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27t hday of April, 2026.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

12 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

::Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses examined:

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1:G.Padma - None -

PW.2:G.Ravinder Reddy

PW.3:G.Venkatamma

PW.4:M.Rajani

PW.5:B.Nageswar Rao

PW.6:A.Janardan Reddy

PW.7:Dr.N.Nivedhitha

PW.8:B.Sai Kumar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1is the report

Ex.P2is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW5

Ex.P3is the signature of PW5 on CDF

Ex.P4is the signature of PW6 on CDF

Ex.P5is the Medical certificate of PW3

Ex.P6is the Medical certificate of PW2

Ex.P7is the FIR

Ex.P8is the CDF For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects:

For Prosecution:

MO.1:is the stick

For Defence: -Nil-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

13 CC No:1261/2022, Dt:27.04.2026

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

CALENDER CASE No. 1261 of 2022

Between : The State police through SI of Police, P.S. Enkoor …Complainant.

And

Gajendra Srikanth, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age: 24 years, Occ: Car Driver cum owner, R/o. Arikayalapadu village of Enkoor Mandal.

...Accused

Charges Under Section 326, 506 IPC

Crime No.73/2022 of P.S Enkoor

Description of the accused : As mentioned above.

Occurrence12.03.2022 Complaint or Report14.03.2022 Apprehension of accused06.04.2022 Release of accused- Commencement of Trial25.08.2022 Closure of Trial22.04.2026 Judgment27.04.2026 Plea of accusedPleaded guilty Finding of the CourtAccused is found not guilty Order and SentenceIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326, 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. MO.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

1 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2026

Present: B. Rajani, Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Khammam.

J.C.C.No. 40 /2024

(Cr.No.519 of 2023 of P.S. Khammam II Town, U/sec.304(A) IPC, 181 of MV Act)

Between: The State police through S.I of police, P.S. Khammam II Town

.... Complainant

And

Bodapatla Sunith Kumar, S/o.Nageswar Rao, Age: 17 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.14-2-Ba 0028, Ballepalli, Khammam ...Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17.04.2026 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri Y.Gnanesh, Learned Counsel for the Juvenile in conflict with law and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: FINAL ORDER ::

1.The Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Khammam II Town filed final report against Child in Conflict with Law in Cr.No.519/2023 of P.S.

Khammam II Town for the offence punishable U/sec.304(A) IPC, Sec.181 of MV Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 14.11.2023 at 1930 hours the defaco complainant Manda

Srinivas came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is the resident of YSR colony, Khammam and eking livelihood by means of 2 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026 private job. His brother in law Anil Kumar got admitted in Government

Hospital, Khammam due to Ill health. To see his brother in law, on 04.11.2023 at 1640 hours his father Manda Chandramouli S/o. Veeraiah, 70 years came to Babai Hotel, Wyra Road, Khammam and had tea and while crossing the road, meanwhile the accuseed/rider of Hero Honda

Glamour motor cycle bearing No. AP/20/AW/1193 drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and proceeding to Yellandu Cross road side from Government Hospital side and dashed against his father, resulting which his father fell down and sustained severe injuries over right hand, right leg, chest and back side of head. On knowing the same he came there and got admitted his father in Government Hospital,

Khammam. On 10.11.2023 his father was shifted to Max Care Hospital,

Khammam from Government Hospital, Khammam, where treated, even though his father not recovered. Again on 14.11.2023 his father shifted to

Sri Raksha Hospital, Khammam and got admitted for treatment and his condition is in serious. Finally he requested to cause enquiry and to take necessary action

Basing on the report, the police registered a case in

Cr.No.519/2023, u/sec.337 IPC and the investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of LW.2 to LW.5 drafted rough sketch in the presence of mediators and got photographed the dead body of the deceased through LW5. On 15.11.2023 at 1425 hours the defacto 3 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026 complainant again came to PS and lodged complaint stating that the injured Manda Chandramouli expired while undergoing treatment on 15.11.2023 at 1400 hours and on receipt of the same the section of law was altered into 304(A) IPC from 337 IPC and the alteration memo submitted to the Hon’ble Court and the copies of alteration memo submitted to all concerned officers and re-examined the LW1 and recorded his statement. Visitied Government Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW8 and LW9 and gave a requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. Notice U/Sec. 41 Cr.P.C has been issued to CCL on 18.11.2023. on perusal of the record the CCL is not having valid license and the crime vehicle is not having insurance to the crime vehcile and after receipt of the MVI report and PME report and after completion of the investigation officer filed the final report against the CCL in conflict with law for the offence punishable u/sec.304(A) IPC, 181 of MV Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and 181 of MV act against Child in conflict with law and notice was ordered to him.

4.On appearance of the Child in conflict with law, copies of case documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

5.The Child in conflict with law was examined under Section 251

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation made against the Juvenile in conflict with law for offences U/sec.304A IPC, 181 of MV Act is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6. PW1 is the defacto-complainant and son of the deceased, PW2 is the wife of deceased, PW3 is the panch witness for Inquest panchanama, PW4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, PW5 is the doctor who conducted PME, PW6 is the Investigation officer, PW7 is the Panch witness for CDF. The learned APP given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e. LW3 to LW6.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, Child in Conflict with Law was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating material in the evidence of Pws.1 to 7, having understood the same he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

9.Now the Point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Juvenile in conflict with law beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC, 181 of MV Act?

5 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

POINT:

10.PW1 deposed in his chief examination that he is resident of

Khammam and PW2 is his mother and the deceased is his father. Further deposed that on 04.11.2023 at about 5.00 PM his father came to

Government Hospital, Khammam inorder to see his brother in law and while he was returning from the said Hospital by walking and when he reached at Babai Hotel, Khammam one two wheeler came into opposite direction and hit his father resulting which he fell down and sustained injuries on head, shoulder, hands and hip, Immediately got shifted to

Government Hospital and treated for 3 days and later shifted him to the

Max Care Hospital, Khammam for better treatment and from there shifted him to Sri Raksha Hospital, Khammam and while undergoing treatment his father died on 15.11.2023.

During cross examination he deposed that the alleged accident was took place at Babai Hotel, Khammam. PW1 admitted that at the time of alleged accident he did not present at the scene of offence and the deceased only present. Further deposed that he did not remember the alleged crime vehicle bearing number and its colour and he did not mention in Ex.P1 that from whom he came to know about the alleged accident. He denied the suggestions of Learned Defence counsel that the

CCL is no way concerned with the alleged accident and deposing false.

11.PW2 who is the wife of deceased and mother of PW1 deposed in her chief examination in the same lines of PW1 in all material aspects.

6 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

During cross examination she deposed that the alleged accident took place at evening hours. She denied the suggestions of

Learned Defence Counsel that the deceased never met with an accident and the CCL is no way concerned with the alleged accident and that she is deposing false.

12.PW3 deposed in his chief examination that on 15.11.2023 at about 02:00 PM to 02.30 PM he went to the Government Hospital,

Khammam inorder to visit the dead body of deceased by name

Chandramohan who is the father of his friend and there police of

Khammam II Town conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW9 and he noticed that the deceased sustained injuries over the back side of head, forehead, right hand, right leg and after completion of inquest panchanama he along with LW9 signed on it.

13.PW4 who is the Motor Vehicles Inspector deposed in his chief examination that on 06.12.2023 at about 10.30AM he received a requisition from PS Khammam II Town and accordingly on the same day at about 17.30hours he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 20 AW 1193 and no damages were found and as per his opinion there is no mechanical defects on alleged crime vehicle. Accordingly he issued MVI report under Ex.P3.

7 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

During his Cross examination by the learned defense counsel he admitted that there might be a chance to get damages on Bumper,

Doom to any two wheeler if any accident took place. Further stated that at the time of inspection he found no damages on the crime vehicle. He denied the suggestion of learned defence counsel that he issued Ex.P3 at the request of police and crime vehicle not involved any alleged accident.

14.PW5 in his chief examination deposed that on 15.11.2023 at about 05.15PM he received requisition from SHO Khammam II Town through PC.No.2467 Town for conducting of PME on body of deceased by name M. Chandra Mouli, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 70 years and he started autopsy on the same day at 05:30PM and concluded at 07.00PM and he found injuries as following.

1. Laceration 4X4CM with a blunt object at Occipital region of head.

2 Multiple contusion present at Cerebella region of brain, Hematoma present.

3. Fracture both bones of right forearm

4. Laceration of 3X3CM at right leg.

5. Multiple abrasions on the face.

Further stated that to the best of his knowledge, the cause of death is due to Cardio respiratory arrest due to traumatic brain injury and issued PME report under Ex.P4.

8 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

15.PW6 who is the investigation Officer in this case in his chief examination deposed the lines of his investigation and filing of charge sheet.

During cross examination PW6 admitted that there is no divider cutting infront of Babai Hotel and there is a divider cutting infront of the Government Hospital, Khammam. Further deposed that he did not mention in the charge sheet that there is no availability of CCTV footage at the scene of offene. Further deposed that he did not examine any eye witness at the scene of offence and did not collect any evidence to show that the CCL has drove the crime vehicle and caused the alleged accident.

He denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that all the list of witnesses are relatives of PW1 and that the CCL is no way concerned with the alleged accident and they falsely implicated the CCL in this case and that he conducted table made investigation and he is deposing false.

16.PW7 deposed in his chief examination that in the year 2023 on one day while he was present at Yellandu Road, Khammam, police

Khammam II Town came to him and informed him that there was an accident took place and there police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of another one. After completion of the panchanama they signed on it.

During cross examination he admitted that he was not present at the time of preparing CDF/Ex.P6 and further admitted that police 9 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026 obtained his signatures on Ex.P6/CDF after preparing it and he does not know the contents of Ex.P6/CDF.

17.When a case relating to the offence punishable U/Sec. 304 IPC it is essential to note the ingredients of Sec.304(A) of IPC.

The following are the ingredients of Sec.304(A) of IPC:-

i) There must be the death of a person ii) The accused must have caused the death iii) The death must be caused by rash or negligent act of the accused.

18.In the case on hand on careful perusal of evidence of Pw1 and

PW2 they deposed that on 04.11.2023 at about 5.00 PM the deceased met with an accident at Babai Hotel, Khammam and immediately shifted to

Government Hospital, Khammam and form there Max Care Hospital,

Khammam and from there Sri Raksha Hospital, Khammam, for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 15/11/2023. On perusal of the evidence of PW3, he deposed that police conducted the inquest panchnama under Ex.P3 over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW9 and on the perusal of evidence of PW5, he deposed that on the requisition of SHO, Khammam

II town, he conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Ex.P4.

10 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

19.Therefore, on the perusal of evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, and

PW4, the death of a person is proved.

20.While coming to the another ingredient that has to be proved, that the accused person caused such death by doing a rash or negligent act.

21.Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has to prove that the crime vehicle was involved in the offence and the CCL drove the crime vehicle and caused such death by doing rash or negligent act. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, he admitted that he was not present at the scene of offence and he does not know the alleged crime vehicle number and colour. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to identify the crime vehicle and who drove the crime vehicle. On perusal of the evidence of PW2, she is not an eyewitness to the alleged accident and she nowhere stated that she was present at the scene of offence and witnessed the alleged accident. Therefore, the evidence of

PW2 is no way helpful to identify the crime vehicle and who drove the crime vehicle. On perusal of the evidence of PW4, who is the Motor Vehicle

Inspector, during his cross-examination, admitted that there may be a chance to get damages on bumper, doom of any two-wheeler if any accident occured and at his inspection, he found no damages on the crime vehicle. Hence, it creates a doubt in the mind of the Board with regard to the identification of the crime vehicle. On perusal of the evidence of PW7, 11 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026 who allegedly acted as mediator for the scene of offence panchnama, during his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing Ex.P6/CDF and the police obtained his signature after completion of the CDF, and he does not know the contents of Ex.P6/PDF.

Therefore, the evidence of PW7 is also no way helpful. On perusal of the evidence of PW6, who is the investigation officer in this case, during his cross-examination deposed that he did not collect any CCTV footage at the scene of the offence and he did not examine any eye witness at the scene of offence and did not collect any evidence to show that the CCL drove the crime vehicle and caused the alleged accident. Therefore, upon perusal of the entire evidence available on record, there is no eyewitness or any other material to establish that the crime vehicle was involved in the alleged accident and the CCL drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the alleged accident and thereby caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the crime vehicle was involved in the alleged offence and the CCL drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased by placing cogent evidence. Therefore in the above said circumstances this Board is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the CCL is entitled for acquittal in this case.

22.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Board is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond 12 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026 reasonable doubt and hence the CCL is entitled to be acquitted.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the CCL and against the prosecution.

23. IN THE RESULT, Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 181 of MV

Act and he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Parental bonds of Juvenile in conflict with law shall stands canceled.

There is no order as to property as no property is produced.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Juvenile Justice Board on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Khammam

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution. For Defence:

PW.1: M.Srinivasa Rao -None- PW.2: M.Suguna PW.3: G.Veeranna PW.4: A.Varaprasad PW.5: Dr.K.Ashok Kumar PW.6: T.Nagaraju PW.7: Chirra Naresh

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the report

Ex.P2: is the certified copy of the Inquest panchanama

Ex.P3: is the certified copy of MVI report

Ex.P4: is the certified copy of PME report

Ex.P5: is the certified copy of FIR

Ex.P6: is the certified copy of CDF 13 JCC 40/2024, dt.24.04.2026

Ex.P7: is the CDF

For defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Khammam Members.

1. Smt.P.Lalitha

2. Vacant.

1 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

Date this the 27th day of June, 2025

Present:B. Rajani, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

CC No.1103 of 2022 (Old CC No.1351/2020)

Cr.No.39/2020, U/sec.294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC of P.S. Enkoor

Between: The State police through Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Enkoor

.... Complainant

And

A1. Banoth Sathish, S/o. Laxma, age 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bhadru Thanda village of Enkoor Mandal. A2. Banoth Suresh, S/o. Laxma, age 28 years, Occ: Bank employee, R/o. Bhadri Thanda village of Enkoor Mandal A3. Banoth Laxma, S/o. Sariya, age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bhadru thanda village of Enkoor Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 25.06.2025 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri Narsing Srinivas, Advocate for accused No.1 to 3 and upon perusing the material on record; this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police P.S. Enkoor laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.39/2020 of P.S. Enkoor alleging that the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence under section 188, 294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 26.03.2020 at about 9AM the defacto complainant along with staff started from Police station for patrolling and on the Orders of SI 2 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 of Police P.S. Enkoor they went to Rama Thanda village to attend Dial- 100 emergency call and talked with a man named Shiva and reprimand those persons who came to outrage him and solved the problem and after solved the issue, they went to Onti Gudise village to prevent the

Corona Virus spreading in crowds and there were a mob at public school playing Volley ball, they reprimand them regarding Corona Virus, then they went out of there, from there they approached Ramalayam temple at about 11AM situated at Bhadru Thanda village, there the accused

No.1, who is coming on Glamour bike bearing No. TS 04 ET 1441, then the defacto complainant asked him to why you are wondering in village without wearing face mask, then the accused No.1 to 3 all together abused the defacto complainant along with staff in indecent vocabulary i.e. “Meeru Evarura Lanjakodakallara Maaku Cheppataniki, Idi Maa Vuru

Raa”, in the meantime the accused tried to attack with their footwear and disrupts the duties of defacto complainant and prevented their Petro car from moving forward and later the defacto complainant lodged a report with the police.

3.Basing on the report the case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.39/2020, U/sec.188, 294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC and the investigating officer examined and recorded the statement of defacto complainant and visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators and secured LW2 to LW4, examined and recorded their statements and after completion of the 3 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 investigation, the investigating officer field charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/sec.188, 294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On receipt of the charge sheet the court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec.294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC against the accused No.1 to 3 and summons were served to them.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of case documents were furnished to them in accordance with Section 207

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused No.1 to 3 were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.294(b), 353 r/w 34 of IPC, and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Pw.1 is the defacto complainant,

PW2 to PW4 are the eye witnesses to the incident, PW5 to PW8 are the panch witnesses and PW9 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report,

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW4, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW5 on panchanama, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW6 on panchanama, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW7 on CDF, Ex.P6 is the signature of PW8 on CDF, 4 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025

Ex.P7 is the FIR and Ex.P8 is the CDF. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW5 and LW10.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating material in the evidence of Pws.1 to 9, having understood the same and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the documents available on record.

10.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC?

POINT:

11.PW1 in his chief examination deposed that on 26.03.2020 at about 09.00AM he received dial 100 call and he along with PW2 and PW3 went to the Rama Thanda Village and sought out the problem of one

Shiva and later they observed that some persons were playing volleyball at Government School inspite of Covid Lock-down period and they cleared off them and from there they went to Bhadru Thanda Village and when they reached at Ramalayam there they observed that A1 coming on his two wheeler without wearing mask, as such they questioned him, meantime A2 and A3 came there and quarreled with them and abused 5 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 them in a filthy language and tried to beat them by using their chappals and obstructed their patrolling vehicles and on seeing the incident some people gathered and on the advise of some elders the accused persons gave away to their vehicle. Later PW1 lodged Ex.P1 report with police.

12.During cross examination of PW1, he deposed that Ex.P1 is scribed by him and they did not receive any passport or written instructions from his superior officer to attend patrolling duty on the day of alleged incident. Further stated that himself, LW2 and LW3 were having mobile phones at the time of alleged incident. PW1 admitted that the officers attending patrolling duty used to provide Tab (I-Pad) for informing of any emergency situations and they did not capture any photographs of A1 when he was coming on two wheeler without wearing mask and they did not take the photographs of the alleged incident. He denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that he misbehaved with A1 at Enkoor P.S when he came to P.S on his work and that on the basis of previous grudges he lodged false report against the accused persons and that on 26.03.2020 they did not went to the scene of offence and no offence took place and the accused are no way concerned with the case.

13.PW2 and PW3 in their chief examination deposed the same lines of PW1 in all material aspects. During cross examination of PW2, he deposed that he is working as Court constable since 2023. Further stated 6 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 that generally he used to carry official mobile phone with him and on the day of alleged incident PW1 having Tab(I-pad) in their patrolling vehicle.

Further admitted that he used to capture photographs and videograhs through the said I-pad whenever they across the emergency situations or any other incidents. Further stated that they did not take the photographs or videographs of A1 on his two wheeler and the alleged incident took place. He denied suggestions of learned defence counsel that on 26.03.2020 they did not receive dial 100 call and they did not went to Bhadru Thanda village and that as the PW1 misbehaved with A1 at P.S Enkoor, as such PW1 lodged false report against the accused persons and that accused No.1 did not come on two wheeler without wearing mask and that he is deposing false.

14.During cross examination of PW3 stated that PW2 received dial 100 call at about 11.00AM and he was the driver of the patrolling car on the day of alleged incident and they reached Rama Thanda at about 11.15AM and thereafter they went to Bhadru Thanda at 11.20AM. Further stated that they did not capture videos or photos of the accused persons at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that PW1 falsely implicated the accused persons in this case and that on 26.03.2020 they did not went to scene of offence and that he is deposing false in order to help the PW1.

7 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025

15.PW4 is the eye witness to the incident deposed that he does not know any facts of this case. PW5 and PW6, who are the panch witness deposed that at at about four years ago on one day they went to

P.S. Enkoor on their personal work and there police obtained their signatures on some written papers, but they do not know its contents and they do not know for what purpose they have obtained their signatures, except this they do not know any facts of this case. PW7 and

PW8, who are the panch witnesses for CDF deposed that about five years ago on one day police went to their village and there police obtained their signatures on some papers and except this they do not know any facts of this case. PW4 to PW8 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

16.PW9, who is the investigating officer deposed the lines of investigation and filing of charge sheet. During his cross examination he deposed that he has given written instructions to PW1 to PW3 and on 26.03.2020 he depute PW1 to attend the complaint which was received through dial 100 call. Further stated that PW1 did not mention the names of eye witnesses either in Ex.P1 or in his 161 Cr.P.C statement. Further admitted that they will provide a Tab (I-pad) in patrolling vehicle to capture the photographs if required and PW1 to PW3 having their mobiles phones at the time of patrolling duty. He denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel that on 26.03.2020 PW1 to PW3 did not went to the patrolling duty and LW10 did not went to the house of accused and 8 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 did not paste U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the door of accused and that there are some disputes between the PW1 and accused at police station and basing on such previous grudges PW1 lodged false case against the accused and that accused are no way concerned with the case and accused did not obstruct the duties of PW1 to PW3 and that he registered a false case for statistical purpose.

17.On perusal of entire evidence available on record PW1 to

PW3 deposed that on 26.03.2020 at about 09.00AM they received dial 100 call and they went to Rama Thanda Village and sought out the problem of one Shiva and later observed that some persons were playing volleyball at Government School inspite of Covid Lock-down period, as such they cleared off them and later went to Bhadru Thanda Village and when they reached to Ramalayam they observed A1 was coming on his two wheeler without wearing mask, as such they questioned him, and in the meanwhile A2 and A3 came there and quarreled with them and abused them in filthy language. During cross examination of PW1 deposed that they did not receive any written instructions from his superior officer to attend patrolling duty on the day of alleged incident.

Whereas PW9, who is the investigating officer in this case during his cross examination deposed that he has given written instructions to PW1 to 3. PW9 further deposed that PW1 did not mention the names of eye witnesses either in Ex.P1 or in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and admitted that they will provide I-pad in patrolling vehicle to capture the photographs if required and further admitted that PW1 to PW3 were 9 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025 having their mobile phones at the time of alleged incident. But admittedly inspite of having their mobile phones they did not take any photographs or video-graphs respectively with regard to alleged incident.

18.Moreover upon perusal of entire evidence on record PW1 to

PW3 are police personnels and other eye witnesses and panch witnesses are turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. PW9, who is the investigating officer also did not collect any material evidence to prove the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the discharging of the duty by PW1 to PW3 at the scene of offence on the said date of the incident and hence in the absence of independent evidence this court is of the opinion that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidences of PW1 to PW3, who are interested in the out come of the case and hence this court has safely come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.294(b), 353 of Indian Penal

Code and hence the accused persons are entitled to be acquit for the said offences.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 294(b), 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal 10 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025

Code and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. There is no order as to case property as no property is deposited before this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2025.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Shaik Saida -None- PW.2: D. Bharath PW.3: M. Venkateswara Rao PW.4: Shaik Mujhaid PW.5: Mogili Nagaraju PW.6: B. Sevya PW.7: Banoth Babulal PW.8: Banoth Rama Krishna PW.9: A. Sreekanth

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is report Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW4 Ex.P3: is the signature of PW5 on panchanama Ex.P4: is the signature of PW6 on panchanama Ex.P5: is the signature of PW7 on CDF Ex.P6: is the signature of PW8 on CDF Ex.P7: is the FIR Ex.P8 is the CDF For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects:

-Nil-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

11 CC No:1103/2022, Dt:27.06.2025

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

CALENDER CASE No.1103 of 2022 (Old CC No.1351 /2020 )

Between : The State police through Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Enkoor

.... Complainant

And

A1. Banoth Sathish, S/o. Laxma, age 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bhadru Thanda village of Enkoor Mandal. A2. Banoth Suresh, S/o. Laxma, age 28 years, Occ: Bank employee, R/o. Bhadri Thanda village of Enkoor Mandal A3. Banoth Laxma, S/o. Sariya, age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bhadru thanda village of Enkoor Mandal.

...Accused

Charges Under Section 294(b), 353 r/w 34 IPC

Crime No.39/2020 of PS Enkoor

Description of the accused : As mentioned above.

Occurrence26.03.2020 26.03.2020 Complaint or Report

Apprehension of accused - Release of accusedIssued 41(A) Cr.P.C Commencement of Trial24.09.2024 Closure of Trial24.06.2025 Judgment27.06.2025 Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the CourtAccused No.1 to 3 found not guilty Order and Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. There is no order as to case property as no property is deposited before this Court.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

1/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 25th day of June, 2025

PRESENT: B. Rajani, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

CC.No. 2288 of 2022

Between:- Insecticide Inspector and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Wyra Division, Khammam District. …Complainant

And

A1. Sri Swayampakala Venkata Bhanu Prasad, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Manufacturer/Distributor of M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Ltd.6/2, Ruvapari Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and distributed by M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Ltd, Plot No.15, Block No.43, Auto nagar, Hyderabad.

A2. Smt. Bandarupalli Ashwini W/o. Krishna, Dealer of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Agros. D.No.5-257/2, Main road, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. …Accused No.1 and 2 -*-

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.06.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri. K. Kishore Ambethkhar, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers available on record; having been heard and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Insecticide Inspector and Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Wyra Division, Khammam District filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 an 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.17(1)(a)(c) r/w

Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act.

2.The brief facts of the case as per complaint are as follows:- 2/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

On 28.09.2021 at 10AM LW1/Insecticide Inspector,

Khammam District visited the business premises of M/s. Sri

Srinivasa Agros, D.No.5-257/2, Main road, Wyra, Wyra Mandal,

Khammam District, as per section 22(5) of the Insecticides

Act, intimation in writing was given to accused No.2 in Form

No.V(c) and his acknowledgment was obtained on the duplicate intimation slip is produced. During inspection by the

LW1, the accused No.2 was present and LW1 draw the sample of the Bio Pesticide called Tricho HR (Trichoerama Harziarium)

Batch No.BDX 008 manufactured by M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals

India Limited and LW1 has taken 3 sealed containers each 1KG from the stock of the Bio Pesticide of the accused No.2 and the said containers were separately packed and sealed as per the contemplated procedure laid down in Sec.22 of Insecticides

Act and the LW1 has fi lled up the Form V (C) and asked the dealer to append his specimen stamp on Form V (c) as per section 34(3) of Insecticides Rules, 1971. The fi rst container called dealer sample has been handed over to the accused

No.2 as per section 22(6) of Act and acknowledgment was obtained on panchanama and second container called lab sample was sent to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Coding

Centre, Sameti, Hyderabad as per Gazette notifi cation No.754 of Agriculture and Co-operation, Dt.24.06.1999 notifi ed for coding and analysis for the entire Telangana State and the 3/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

third container called as Referee sample was kept under the safe custody of Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam, who is licensing authority of insecticide for the concerned District.

Further submitted that as per section 22(3) of the

Act, LW1 has tendered the fair price of the Insecticide sample taken as above to accused No.1, who has given the bill vide bill No.165, dt.28.09.2021, the entire procedure was recorded in the panchanama and after receipt of analytical report in form No. IV from Deputy Director of Agriculture, Pesticide

Coding center, Samethi, Hyderabad, the LW1 has proceeded to accused No.2 and served a copy of analysis report to him as per section 24(2) of Insecticide Act and obtained the acknowledgment on duplicate under a cover of panchanama and accordingly the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam, who is licensing authority for pesticides issued show cause notice to the accused No.1 and 2 vide Lr.No.C1/PP/936/2021 and the Accused No.1 is the Manufacture and Distributor and accused No.2 is the dealer. Thus, accused No.1 and 2 committed for the off ence punishable U/Sec.17(1)(a)(c) r/w

Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 17(1)(a)

(c) r/w Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act against accused No.1 and 2 and summons were issued to them.

4/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 17(1)(a)(c) r/w Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P13 are marked.

7.Out of (03) witnesses cited by the prosecution, the

Prosecution has examined (3) witnesses i.e., PW1 is the Insecticide

Inspector and Assistant Director of Agriculture and PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for drawal of sample and seizure. Ex.P.1 is Private

Complaint, Ex.P.2 is Form-V(c), Ex.P.3 is the panchanama, dt.28.09.2021,

Ex.P4 is the bill receipt, Dt.28.09.2021, Ex.P5 is the Chemical analysis report i.e., Form-IV, Ex.P6 is the copy of stock register, Ex.P7 is the copy of Invoice, Ex.P8 is the panchanama, Dt.28.0.202, Ex.P9 is the show cause notice, dt.09.11.2021, Ex.P10 is the copy of proceedings of this court, dt.20.11.2021 and Ex.P11 is the proceedings of the District

Collector, Dt.09.05.2022.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating 5/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

circumstances appeared against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard and perused the record.

10.Now the Point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved this case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 17(1)(a)(c) r/w Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11.In the case on hand the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13. PW2 and PW3 are the mediators on panchanamas of drawal of samples and all of them turned hostile and deposed that PW1 called them to the shop of accused No.2, there obtained their signatures on some papers, except this they do not know anything about this case.

12.PW1, who is the Insecticides Inspector and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Wyra Division, Khammam District deposed in his evidence that on 28.09.2021 at about 10AM he has visited the shop of A2 M/s. Sri

Srinivasa Agros, Wyra for inspection as a part of his duties and at the time of visiting, he found that they are stocking and selling the Tricho HR

Pesticide and A1 is the supplier of the above said pesticide and at that time A2 was present in the shop and in her presence and in the presence of LW2 and LW3 he drawn samples of the said pesticide from the shop of

A2 and he conducted panchanama in the presence of LW2 and LW3 and 6/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

he drawn samples which are available in the shop of A2 i.e. 3 sealed containers, each contains 1KG and the first container is handed over to the dealer i.e. A2 and second container is sent to the Deputy Director of

Agriculture Coding center, Sameti, Hyderabad for analysis and third container is handed over to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam for safe custody and later he has taken bill No.165, dated 28.09.2021 from A2 and later he received analytical report i.e. Form-IV on 28.10.2021 by resulting the seized sample was non par with the quality standards prescribed by CIB and RC (MISBRANDED) and on the same day he served the same to A2 and seized stock register and invoice and conducted panchanama for the above process in the presence of LW2 and LW3 and later Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam issued show cause notice to A1 and A2 and later he filed requisition in this Court for safe custody of seized material and the same is accorded from the

Hon’ble Court and thereafter, he filed a complaint before the Hon'ble

Court and filed charge sheet for the offence U/S.17 (1) (a) (c) r/w 3(k) (i) and Sec.29 of Insecticides Act against the accused No.1 and 2.

13.On perusal of the record it is observed that PW2 and PW3, who are the mediators on the drawal of sample and seizure panchanamas have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 has inspected the premises of accused No.2 and drew the insecticide sample and send the sample for analysis and it was opined in the analysis report that 7/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

sample is Mis-branded insecticide and hence in order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove that the samples were obtained from the insecticide which was in the premises where the accused illegally stocked them, but in the present case PW2 and PW3 who allegedly acted as mediators for seizure of the insecticides have turned hostile and deposed that they does not know anything about this case and no panchanama was conducted in their presence and except

PW1 no other prosecution witnesses have deposed about the drawing of the samples from the insecticide stocked by the accused.

14.PW1 in this case is the Insecticides Inspector and Assistant

Director of Agriculture and he belongs to the same department as the

Investigating Officer and subordinate to the investigating officer and he allegedly collected the samples and which shows that he initiated the proceedings and thus he will generally be interested in the outcome of the case and hence this court is of the opinion that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole evidence of PW1 when there is no corroborative evidence, when the prosecution failed to prove the drawing of the samples and conducting of the panchanama with the independent evidence.

15.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

8/8

CC No.2288/2022, Dt.25.06.2025

16. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 17(1)(a)(c) r/w Sec.3(k)(i) and 29 of Insecticide Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time. There is no order as to case property as no property is deposited before this Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2025.

I ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution For the Defence

PW.1: Velpula Babu Rao -Nil- PW.2: A. Uday Kumar PW.3: M. Mahesh Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution Ex.P.1: is Private Complaint Ex.P.2: is Form-V(c) Ex.P.3: is the panchanama, dt.28.09.2021 Ex.P4: is the bill receipt, Dt.28.09.2021 Ex.P5: is the Chemical analysis report i.e., Form-IV Ex.P6: is the copy of stock register Ex.P7: is the copy of Invoice Ex.P8: is the panchanama, Dt.28.0.202 Ex.P9: is the show cause notice, dt.09.11.2021 Ex.P10: is the copy of proceedings of this court, dt.20.11.2021 Ex.P11: is the proceedings of the District Collector, Dt.09.05.2022 For the defence -NIL-

MATERIALS OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

1 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

Date this the 30th day of April, 2026

Present:B. Rajani, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

CC No. 998 of 2022(Old No.822/2016)

Cr.No. 70/2016 , U/sec.143, 341 r/w 149 IPC of P.S. Enkoor

Between:

The State police through Inspector of police, P.S. Enkoor

.... Complainant

And

A1 Mandula Prabhakar S/o Venkaiah (Late), 39 Years, Agriculture, R/o Adavi Madhulapally Village of Kamepally Mandal (The case against A1 is abated)

A2 Nallamothu Vijaya Raju, S/o Danaiah, 29 Years, P.G.Student, R/o Yerrupalem Village and Mandal,

A3 Muripidi Naresh S/o Venkateshwarlu, 25 Years, Student R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal,

A4 Kinnera Ananda Rao S/o Kotaiah, 40 Years, RTC Conductor R/o Kalluru village & Mandal

A6 Dibbandula Ram Mohan S/o Lalaiah, 29 Years, Agriculture, R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal

A7 Karumanchi Gopi S/o Venkateshwarlu, 22 Years, Car Driver R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 28.04.2026 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and Ms./Smt. SK.Shajahan Parveen, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record; this court delivered the following:

2 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police P.S. Enkoor laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.70/2016 of P.S. Enkoor alleging that the accused has committed an offence under section 143, 341 r/w 149 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 29.05.2016 at 13.00 hours the complainant/ Sl of Police,

Enkoor PS lodged a written report stating that, on 29.05.2016 at about 12.30 hours he along with staff reached to Enkoor center and noticed that the

A1/Mandula Prabhakar, A2/Nallamothu Vijaya Raju, A3/Muripidi Naresh,

A4/Kinnera Ananda Rao, A5/Damsalapudi Prasad and others were formed themselves as unlaw full assembly and staged RASTHAROKO on the main road,

Enkoor center and wrongfully obstructed the vehicular traffic, pedestrians and passers, due to the reason that Cherukoori Narasimharao died due to injection failure at Prudhvi Hospital at Enkoor. The defacto complainant informed to superior officers about the matter, in preventive measures as they may be commit any cognizable offences, after disbursement of the above persons. He send a requisition to the Station House Officer for registering a case as per law.

ii.Basing on the report the case was registered against the accused persons in Cr.No.70/2016, U/sec.143, 341 r/w 149 IPC and the investigating officer examined and recorded the statement of defacto complainant and 3 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026 visited the scene of offence, secured the witnesses i.e. LW2 to LW7, examined and recorded their statements and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators and on 24.12.2026 issued u/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notices to accused no.1 to 3 and 6 and 7 and on 25.12.2026 issued u/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notices to accused no.4 and after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer field charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.143, 341 r/w 149 IPC.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet the court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec. 143, 341 r/w 149 IPC against the accused no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 and summons was served to them.

4.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 4, 6 and 7, copies of case documents were furnished to them in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.143, 341 r/w 149 IPC, and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses, PW3 is the mediator for CDF, PW4 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW5, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW6, Ex.P3 is the 4 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026 signature of PW3 on CDF, dated 29.05.2016, Ex.P4 is the report, Ex.P5 is the

FIR and Ex.P6 is the CDF. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW1 to

LW4, LW7, LW8, LW10 and LW11.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.2 to 4, 6 and 7 examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating material in the evidence of Pws.1 to 4, having understood the same and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the documents available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 143, 341 r/w 149 IPC?

POINT:

10.PW1 and PW2 who are alleged to be eye witnesses deposed that they do not know any facts of this case and that police did not examine them and did not record their statements and turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

11.PW3 who is alleged to be mediator for CDF deposed that in the year 2016 on one day police obtained his signatures at their village on some written papers but he does not know its contents and for what purpose they 5 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026 obtained his signature and further deposed that except this police never conducted any panchanama in his presence and turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.PW4, who is the investigating officer deposed the lines of investigation and filing of charge sheet. During cross examination he denied the suggestions of learned defence counsel for the accused that accused are no way concerned with the case and he filed false charge sheet against the accused persons for the purpose of statistical purpose and he conducted table made investigation.

13.On careful perusal of entire evidence available on record PW1 and

PW2 who are cited as eye witnesses to the incident and PW3 who is the mediator for CDF turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of defacto complainant and other witnesses for the reasons best known to them. Therefore it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW4 who is the investigation officer and who is interested in the out come of the case without any corroborating independent evidence as the alleged witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence this court has safely come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.143, 341 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and hence the accused are entitled to be acquit for the said offences.

6 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

14.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused no.2 to 4, 6 and 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 143, 341 r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. There is no order as to case property as no property is deposited before this Court.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: P.Suresh -None- PW.2: Ch.Sreenu PW.3: Sk.Hussain PW.4: T.Nagaraju

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW5 Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW6 Ex.P3: is the signature of PW3 on CDF dated 29.05.2016 Ex.P4: is the report Ex.P5: is the FIR 7 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

Ex.P6: is the CDF

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects:

-Nil-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM

8 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

CALENDER CASE No. 998 of 20 22(old No.822/2016)

Between : The State police through Inspector of police, P.S. Enkoor

.... Complainant

And

A1 Mandula Prabhakar S/o Venkaiah (Late), 39 Years, Agriculture, R/o Adavi Madhulapally Village of Kamepally Mandal (The case against A1 is abated)

A2 Nallamothu Vijaya Raju, S/o Danaiah, 29 Years, P.G.Student, R/o Yerrupalem Village and Mandal,

A3 Muripidi Naresh S/o Venkateshwarlu, 25 Years, Student R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal,

A4 Kinnera Ananda Rao S/o Kotaiah, 40 Years, RTC Conductor R/o Kalluru village & Mandal

A6 Dibbandula Ram Mohan S/o Lalaiah, 29 Years, Agriculture, R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal

A7 Karumanchi Gopi S/o Venkateshwarlu, 22 Years, Car Driver R/o Ambedkar nagar of Enkoor Mandal

...Accused

Charges Under Section 143, 341 r/w 149 IPC

Crime No.70/2016 of PS Enkoor

Description of the accused : As mentioned above.

Occurrence29.05.2016 29.05.2016 Complaint or Report

Apprehension of accused - Release of accusedIssued 41(A) Cr.P.C to A1 to A3, A6 and A7 on 24.12.2016 and to A4 on 25.12.2016 Commencement of Trial25.11.2021 Closure of Trial07.04.2026 9 CC No:998/2022, Dt:30.04.2026

Judgment30.04.2026 Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the CourtAccused no.2 to 4, 6 and 7

Order and SentenceIn the result, the accused no.2 to 4, 6 and 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 143, 341 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. There is no order as to case property as no property is deposited before this Court.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.